Synopsis: Tax-collectors & Sinners

Call of Levi and Tax-collectors & Sinners

Matthew 9:9-13	Mark 2:13-17	P⁸⁸ Mark 2:13-17	D Mark 2:13-17	W Mark 2:13-17	D Luke 5:27-32	Luke 5:27-32
9Kai paragwn o Ihsous ekeiqen eiden anqrwpon kaqhmonon epi to telwnion, Maqqaion legomenon, kai legei autw Akolouqei moi. kai anastaV hkolouqhsen autw. 10Kai egeneto autou anakeimenou en th oikia kai idou, polloi telwnai kai amartwloi elqonteV sunanekeinto tw Iesou kai toiV maqhtaiV autou. 11kai idonteV oi Farisaioi elegon toiV maqhtaiV autou, Dia ti meta twn telwnwn kai amartwlwn esqiei o didaskaloV umwn; 12o de akousaV eipen Ou creian ecousin oi iscuonteV iatrou all oi kakwV econteV. 13bou gar hlqon kalesai dikaiouV alla amartwlouV.	13Kai exhlqen palin para thn qalassan kai paV o ocloV hrceto proV auton, kai edidasken autoV. 14kai paragwn eiden Leuin ton tou Alfaiou kaqhmonon epi to telwnion, kai legei autw Akolouqei moi. kai anastaV hkolouqhsen autw. 15Kai ginetai katakeisqai auton en th oikia autou, kai polloi telwnai kai amartwloi sunanekeinto tw Iesou kai toiV maqhtaiV autou hsan gar polloi kai hkolouqoun autw. 16kai oi grammateiV twn Farisaiwn idonteV oti esqiei meta twn amartwlwn kai telwnwn elegon toiV maqhtaiV autou Oti meta twn telwnwn kai amartwlwn esqiei. 17kai akousaV o IhsouV legei autoiV oti Ou creian ecousin oi iscuonteV iatrou all oi kakwV econteV. ouk hlqon kalesai dikaiouV alla amartwlouV.	13Kai exhlqen palin para thn qalassan kai paV o ocloV hrceto proV auton, kai edidasken autoV. 14kai paragwn eiden Leuein ton tou Alfaiou kaqhmonon epi to telwnion, kai legei autw Akolouqei moi. kai anastaV hkolouqhsen autw. 15Kai geinetai katakeisqe auton en th oikia autou, kai polloi telwnai kai amartwloi sunanekeinto tw Iesou kai toiV maqhtaiV autou hsan gar polloi kai hkolouqoun autw 16kai oi grammatiV twn Fareisewn. kai idonteV oti esqien meta twn amartwlwn kai twn telwnwn elegon toiV maqhtaiV autou oti meta twn telwnwn kai twn amartwlwn esqiei kai pinei. 17kai akousaV o IhsouV legei oti Ou creian ecousin oi iscuonteV iatrou all oi kakwV econteV. ouk hlqon kalesai dikaiouV alla amartwlouV.	13Kai exhlqen para thn qalassan kai paV ocloV hrceto proV auton, kai edidasken autoV. 14kai paragwn eiden Iakwbon ton tou Alfaiou kaqhmonon epi to telwnion, kai legei autw Akolouqei moi. kai anastaV hkolouqhsen autw. 15Kai egeneto katakeimenwn autwn en th oikeia autou, polloi telwnai kai amartwloi sunanekeinto tw Iesou kai toiV maqhtaiV autou hsan gar polloi oi kai hkolouqhsan autw 16kai oi grammateiV kai oi Farisaioi. kai eidan oti esqiein meta twn amartwlwn kai twn telwnwn kai elegon toiV maqhtaiV autou, Dia ti meta twn amartwlwn kai telwnwn esqiei; 17kai akousaV o IhsouV legei, Ou creian ecousin oi iscuonteV iatrou all oi kakwV econteV. ouk hlqon kalesai dikaiouV alla amartwlouV.	13Kai exhlqen palin para thn qalassan kai paV o ocloV hrceto proV auton, kai edidasken autoV. 14kai paragwn eiden Leuein ton tou Alfaiou kaqhmonon epi to telwnion, kai legei autw Akolouqei moi. kai anastaV hkolouqei autw. 15Kai geinetai anakeimenwn autwn en th oikeia, polloi telwnai kai amartwloi sunanekeinto tw Iesou kai toiV maqhtaiV autou hsan gar polloi kai hkolouqhsan autw. 16kai oi grammateiV twn Farisaiwn elegon toiV maqhtaiV autou, Dia ti meta twn telwnwn kai amartwlwn esqiei; 17kai akousaV o IhsouV legei, Ou creian ecousin oi iscuonteV iatrou alla oi kakwV econteV. ouk elhluqa kalesai dikaiouV alla amartwlouV.	27Kai elqwn palin para thn qalassan ton epakolouqounta autw ocloV edidasken. kai paragwn eiden Leuei ton tou Alfaiou kaqhmonon epi to telwnion, kai legei autw Akolouqei moi. 28kai katalipwn panta anastaV hkolouqei autw. 29Kai epoihsen Leuei dochn autw megalhn en th oikeia autou kai hn ocloV poluV tekwnwn kai allwn anakeimenwn. 30kai oi Farisaioi kai oi grammateiV egogguzon proV touV maqhtaV autou legonteV, Dia ti meta twn telwnwn esqietai kai peinetai; 31apokriqeiV de o IhsouV eipen proV autoV Ou creian ecousin oi ugiainonteV iatrou all oi kakwV econteV. 32ouk hlqon kalesai dikaiouV alla amartwlouV eiV metanoian.	27Kai meta tauta exhlqen kai eqeasato telwnhn onomati Leuin kaqhmonon epi to telwnion, kai eipen autw Akolouqei moi. 28kai katalipwn panta anastaV hkolouqei autw. 29Kai epoihsen dochn megalhn LeuiV autw en th oikia autou kai hn ocloV poluV tekwnwn kai allwn oi hsan met autwn katakeimenoi. 30kai egogguzon oi Farisaioi kai oi grammateiV autwn proV touV maqhtaV autou legonteV, Dia ti meta twn telwnwn kai amartwlwn esqiete kai pinete; 31kai apokriqeiV o IhsouV eipen proV autoV Ou creian ecousin oi ugiainonteV iatrou all oi kakwV econteV. 32ouk elhluqa kalesai dikaiouV alla amartwlouV eiV metanoian.

Notes:

Here are a few comments about the Call of Levi and Tax-collectors & Sinners pericope. I have inserted an extra "guest column" for this series of pericopes from papyrus P⁸⁸ to provide additional information about the structure.

1. The Call of Levi and Tax-collectors & Sinners should be regarded as one pericope. The narrative structure is similar to the call of Simon and Andrew, followed closely by the call of James and John. The unity of the structure is also evident from the spacing between pericopes in the original manuscripts.

2. The setting of the story is different in the gospels. Matthew and Luke have the setting in Capernaum as a continuation of a series of controversy stories beginning with the Healing of the Paralytic. Mark's setting is beside the sea where Jesus has gone to teach. It's likely that the seaside setting is more original. Matthew and Luke have streamlined this seemingly unnecessary change in location. Interestingly, D Luke 5:27 also has the seaside teaching. This is usually regarded as a conflation with Mark. However, it could also be evidence of a recension in Alexandrian Luke.

3. The multiple identities of the tax-collector in Mt 9:9/Mk 2:14/Lk 5:27 implies the existence of several parallel versions. The two most common are of course Matthew in the gospel of Matthew and Levi in Mark and Luke. Both versions appear in the Diatessaron. Levi is referred to as the son of Alphaeus in Mark and the Diatessaron. However, the list of candidates is even more complicated. D and Q Mark 2:14 name James the son of Alphaeus as the tax-collector. This James appears in the list of apostles of all three evangelists. Jerome mentions Matthias as the tax-collector in the gospel of the Hebrews. Matthias, who was appointed as the replacement for Judas Iscariot in Acts 1:23-26, is mentioned in the Clementine Recognitions as having the surname Barnabus.

4. The gathering of the tax-collectors at table in Mt 9:10/Mk 2:15/Lk 5:29 shows interesting variations and evidence of the conflation of two versions of the pericope in Mark. The tax-collectors are sitting at table in Matthew, W Mark, and D Luke, and they are reclining at table in Alexandrian Mark, D Mark, and Alexandrian Luke. Luke has modified the story into a banquet at Levi's house, a characteristic motif of Luke's redaction. The location is ambiguous in the other versions; it could be taken to be either Levi's or Jesus' house.

5. There appears to be an insertion of text from Matthew (or pre-Mt) into Mark 2:15 polloi telwnai kai amartwloi sunanekeinto tw Iesou kai toiV maqhtaiV autou, creating a problematic doublet which the different "text-tendencies" have resolved in various ways. The Alexandrian text, represented here by the consensus text and P⁸⁸, has Jesus reclining at table katakeisqai auton / katakeisqe auton, where he is joined by tax-collectors and sinners. The presence of a kai before polloi, similar to Matthew 9:11, allows this to be a smooth transition. However, in the Western text of D and W Mark 2:15, they are reclining (or sitting) at table, causing a duplication with the Matthean text that follows. The Western text resolves this problem by removing the kai before polloi to create an independent clause that restates the assembly of the group of tax-collectors and sinners. The possible insertion is reminiscent of the introduction to the Capernaum Demoniac in Mt 7:29/Mk 1:22b, where Mark has wording identical to Matthew, even though Matthew's version is found in a completely different context.

6. The consensus versions of Mt 9:11/Mk 2:16/Lk 5:30, respectively, have the Pharisees, the scribes of the Pharisees, or both the Scribes and Pharisees questioning Jesus' disciples about his association with tax-collectors and sinners. However, a comparison of P⁸⁸, D, and W Mark, reveals two different structures. P⁸⁸ and D Mk 2:16 have an extra "kai", kai idonteV / kai eidan (and seeing / and they saw), respectively, that completely changes the meaning. The passage now reads hsan gar polloi kai hkolouqoun autw kai oi grammateiV twn Farisai, kai eiden oti... (for there were many and they were following him, even the scribes of the Pharisees, and they saw that...). The addition of one "kai" changes the scribes from antagonists into followers! The antagonists are an unnamed party, presumably the Pharisees, who were unhappy about losing their scribes to Jesus. W Mark has the other version, where the scribes are antagonists that question Jesus. The Alexandrian consensus text is a hybrid of the two versions. (Note the position of the asterisks.)

7. The question Oti (Why) in Alexandrian Mark has been recognized as an awkward construction. This awkwardness is caused by two conflated versions of the pericope, one asks a question, while the other makes a statement. P⁸⁸ shows the structure of the Alexandrian version more clearly than the consensus text (Codex B, 99% of the time). Note the use of the connecting word oti (that) in three places indicated by asterisks. The other major change caused by the use of kai idonteV is that the expression following the second "oti" in Mk 2:16, oti esqiein meta twn amartwlwn kai twn telwnwn (that they eat with the sinners and the tax-collectors) is now a statement instead of a question. The alternative version is shown most clearly by W Mark. The scribes of the Pharisees interrogate the disciples, beginning the question with Dia ti (Why). The interrogative version is a minor agreement with Matthew and Luke. It is also found in Mark in Codex Sinaiticus, so it has broad support. The use of Oti to ask a question in the consensus text is ambiguous and is a result of confounding the two versions. This is an example of why Codex B should be used with caution when its readings are difficult to interpret. Making an analogy to Freud, sometimes a "difficult reading" is just a mistake.

8. There are some minor variations in vocabulary worth mentioning.
a. The use of kai pinei (and drinks) by P⁸⁸ in Mk 2:17 is said to be Byzantine. If it is, it must be very early. The text has not completely undergone the "ei" to "i" vowel transition.

b. W Mark and D Luke both have anakeimenwn (they sat at table) in Mk 2:15/Lk 5:29. There is a subtle gradient in the similarity of the texts from Matthew to Alexandrian Luke. If Codex Sinaiticus (Aleph) were shown, it would fall between Matthew and consensus Mark.

c. D Luke 5:32 has ouk hlqon (I did not come) in agreement with Mark while W Mark 2:17 has ouk elhluqa (I have not come) in agreement with Alexandrian Luke. Codex W in Mark 1:17 to 5:7 shares many more readings with Alexandrian and/or Western Luke than the consensus text of Mark. Does this imply that a text very similar to W Mark, a Deutero-Mark, was the precursor for Luke, or are these harmonizations to Luke? If they are simple harmonizations, why are they to both the Alexandrian and Western text-types?

9. A few words about textual criticism are in order.
a. This pericope has one of the highest levels of triple agreement in the gospels. Even here, however, there is some evidence for multiple versions that don't fall cleanly within text-types. The composition of Luke can be explained very well using Mark alone as a source. This is a good example in support of Markan priority.

b. In the dialogue of the story, the critics speak to the disciples and Jesus overhears, whereas in the controversy stories that follow, they complain directly to Jesus. Some of the scribes are also followers, at least in the Alexandrian version, whereas they are adversaries in other stories. From a form-critical perspective, does this point to a difference in sources?